Huh, no it's not. With Android and iOS -style appstores, users get their apps pushed/updated by a central app store. Developers push their own updates to the up store. That's not like the old Windows pre-store style of users installing applications manually, and each app handling its own updates automatically, if it even did.

If you think about it for a couple seconds, you'll realize that this is howAndroid and iOS works, and the whole appstore model trend is leading.It's also the reason most Android users don't care that they're stuckon Gingerbread on their mobiles -- the (leaf) apps they use keep being updated regardless.

I can't wait for a cross distro appstore model to trickle into mainstream distributions,where leave application maintainers push their upstream instead of having distro packagers do it.I'm hoping that something like the "Listaller" project really succeeds.

And somehow that argument forgets that they wrote it to work as an extension of a GPL kernel.

IOW, you somehow think its fine for them to to stand on the shoulders of all the kernel's GPL code, without respecting that kernel's GPL license.

If you don't want to GPL your work, then don't make your code a derivative of another GPL work in the first place. This is the crux of the question.

> It is THEIRS, they wrote it, they can do what they will and license it any damned way they want!

Yes, and the people who write the kernel they extended think the same way. But the license they, the kernel copyright owners, chose, is the GPL. If this scsi work is a derivate (again, _that's_ what is in the open), and they don't abide by the GPL, then they don't have a license from all the kernel copyright holders to distribute the resulting kernel.

> If I want to use a GPL library that (for example) has nice string parsing I have to publish the code to my entire multi-million dollar software project> because of that one small component that I could write in a few days. That is completely ridiculous.

What is completely ridiculous is that people still spread this FUD. You do _not_ have to publish the code to your entire multi-million dollar software project. If you fail to comply with the license, then you don't have a license to use the GPL library, and then you're infringing copyright.

Releasing your code is one way to rectify the situation, that it is not the only one. Nothing _forces_ you to publish your code.

Are you worried about sensitivity issues? That does not seem to be a valid technical reason. Even if such image pops up, you're being tor, so nobody will know you've seen it. That does not seem a good reason to spread unjustified "Never visit.onion sites with images enabled in your browser!" FUD.

As for #2, yes, that's what I was thinking. Even a frame could be load from non-onion sites. Heck, you can easily wrap the whole page inside a frame... It seems to be that if that's a worry, then the browser should forbid accesses to non-onion sites from onion sites, either built in, or with a plugin (for user clicks, pop-up a "are you sure you want to go there" warning).

#3 and #4 seem to have nothing to do with onion at all. Those can trigger in non-onion domains just the same.

The FSF, who wrote the GPL, are totally okay with businesses using GPLed code. (a link to a reference escapes me now, but it's there over fsf.org).

You're also wrong in thinking that only volunteers use the GPL -- lots of company's have business models mounted on GPL code.E.g., Red Hat, AdaCode,.. You're dead wrong if you think for example, the Linux kernel, which is GPL, is written mostly by volunteers.